dissent, that the Roman Catholics bring against Protestantism; and one argument is worth just as much as the other, which is just nothing at all. The “Rector of St. John’s Maddermarket,” when that church belonged to the Papists, might have said to the Protestants, “I should like to know what doctrines _Protestantism_ considers essential. The only doctrine in which all _Protestants_ agree, is that of _protesting_ against the church. That is ‘essential’ to their religion, and that alone.” These, the reader will perceive, are precisely Mr. Perowne’s words, if the term dissent be substituted for Protestant; and though he has endeavoured to make many of them look impressive, by printing them in italics, I consider them too puerile to admit of any serious refutation. But the object of Mr. Perowne, in the paragraph from which I have quoted, is to shew that, while Dissenters agree in practical dissent, they widely differ in doctrine. “In other respects, says he, a man may be a Socinian, an Arian, a Quaker, an Anabaptist, an Irvingite, a Calvanist, an Armenian, {16} or a Baxterian. He may hold any notions he pleases. If he do but dissent, he has the essential doctrine of their religion.” Now how blind a man must be, not to perceive that all this language is as much against Mr. Perowne and his church, as it is against Dissenters, and that he himself falls into the very ditch into which he attempts to throw dissent. Are there not doctrines believed, and even taught in the Church of England, “wide as the poles asunder?” Are there not some heresies within her pale from which Dissenters are happily free? May not _millenarianism_ be found in some of her clergy, as well as among the Irvingites? Does not Mr. Perowne himself sanction persons who leave their own parish churches to attend at “St. John’s Maddermarket,” because he preaches a gospel which is opposed to the preaching of the other clergy? Is not this acting on one of the leading principles of dissent, which asserts the right of Christians to choose their own ministers? And if these things be so—and I could enumerate perhaps quite as many varieties of doctrine in the church as Mr. P. can find out of it—why should he “cast the first stone” at Dissenters, for the very sin of which he himself is guilty? and why should he attempt to “pull out the mote from his brother’s eye, when there is a beam in his own?”